It's obvious to me that B29 wanted to convict Zimmerman based on her emotions rather than on the evidence, but was convinced by the other jurors to consider ONLY the evidence. She's still upset because of her emotions, emotions stirred in her by the media that was twisting facts to get higher ratings. Her emotions are also formed by her preconceived notion that anytime a person shoots and kills another person, they (automatically) should be charged with a crime. She's not aware of how the law operates in those cases.

BTW, in reading many comments about this case, it has become apparent to me that a good many (more than I would have guessed) have the opinion that killing someone automatically makes one a murderer and should be arrested and charged immediately without any furthe ado. To them, the killing is all the evidence needed. These people are obviously not aware that all murders are homicides, but all homicides are not murder. I don't think the idea of self defense has any effect upon their logic or opinion.

Who can ever forget this clownish woman? LOL I do a good imitation of her "hunted down like a rabid dog" rhetoric. LOL

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... y-Profiled

It's obvious to me that B29 wanted to convict Zimmerman based on her emotions rather than on the evidence, but was convinced by the other jurors to consider ONLY the evidence. She's still upset because of her emotions, emotions stirred in her by the media that was twisting facts to get higher ratings. Her emotions are also formed by her preconceived notion that anytime a person shoots and kills another person, they (automatically) should be charged with a crime. She's not aware of how the law operates in those cases.

BTW, in reading many comments about this case, it has become apparent to me that a good many (more than I would have guessed) have the opinion that killing someone automatically makes one a murderer and should be arrested and charged immediately without any furthe ado. To them, the killing is all the evidence needed. These people are obviously not aware that all murders are homicides, but all homicides are not murder. I don't think the idea of self defense has any effect upon their logic or opinion.

I am extremely frightened....for all of us. (And to think I never gave a second thought to politics or how the government was run before I began researching for the Zimmerman trial...but then my eyes were opened.)

Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror

A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29’s remarks during ABC’s Robin Roberts' interview about the Zimmerman verdict. The big headline from the story is “George Zimmerman got away with murder,” but that is an inaccurate distillation of Juror B-29's statements. Rather, the substance of the juror’s other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Here’s a key exchange that got my attention:

Juror B-29 says, “For myself, he’s guilty, because the evidence shows he’s guilty.”

Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, “He’s guilty of?”

Juror B-29 responds, “Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.”

We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, we’ve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someone’s hands, the person responsible is guilty of SOMETHING. Indeed, it is natural to feel this way. In a self-defense case, however, that fact that the defendant committed a homicide is stipulated -- it is undisputed. However, self-defense is one of the instances under the law when homicide is justifiable. People may disagree with self-defense laws, but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about. Based on her statement, it seems Juror B-29 looked at the law, and whether or not she agreed with the law, she did her job and made her decision on a legal basis. This is the essence of what we seek in a juror: the ability to use one’s common sense, apply the law to the facts, agree not to be swayed by sympathy or emotion, no matter how loudly it’s argued by the prosecutors, and decide a lawful and fair verdict.

...

When Is Evidence of Your Attacker’s Character Admissible In Court?

During the Zimmerman trial there was considerable consternation among much of the pubic that the trial judge, Debra Nelson, had excluded certain evidence about Trayvon Martin’s past, including his apparent drug use, illegal firearms dealing, passion for “street fighting”, among other pleasant character traits.

Now that the trial has ended in a not guilty verdict Judge Nelson’s evidentiary decisions will never face the scathing reversals they so richly deserve, and I won’t seek to revisit them here. Those decisions do, however, raise some more general evidentiary questions in the context of the law of self-defense. In particular, they raise the question of when, and why, you might be able to introduce into evidence information about the character of the person against whom you used defensive force.

...

Well it's very scary when I've heard many people have say if someone is charged they must be guilty. And I agree with you that I think she may be led by her emotions. Or if she's from Chicago then go figure.

Hi, packy! Nice to cyber-see you!

I used to be one of those people - before this case. I always thought if someone was charged, there was evidence to support the charge. And I'm very frightened of the legal system now.

How CNN Disgraced Itself More Than Any Other News Outlet

Based on history, most media watchers would probably expect NBC News to win the award for the most shameful coverage of George Zimmerman, the 29 year-old Florida man recently acquitted for the tragic shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin. But an objective look at the coverage from major print, online, and broadcast outlets, makes clear that by a fairly safe margin, CNN is most deserving of this win.

...